Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 65 views

    Unpublished

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document summarizes a United States Court of Appeals case involving Laurinda Holohan's appeal of her conviction on one count of conspiracy to commit mail fraud and twelve counts of mail fraud. The court upheld the jury's guilty verdict and 76-month sentence. It found that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Holohan's motion to sever her trial from her co-defendants, and that sufficient evidence supported her conviction. Specifically, evidence of how the fraudulent scheme operated was relevant to all alleged participants, and Holohan had opportunities to challenge evidence but did not appeal any evidentiary rulings. The acquittal of one co-defendant also showed the jury could distinguish culpability.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    Unpublished

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    65 views10 pages
    This document summarizes a United States Court of Appeals case involving Laurinda Holohan's appeal of her conviction on one count of conspiracy to commit mail fraud and twelve counts of mail fraud. The court upheld the jury's guilty verdict and 76-month sentence. It found that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Holohan's motion to sever her trial from her co-defendants, and that sufficient evidence supported her conviction. Specifically, evidence of how the fraudulent scheme operated was relevant to all alleged participants, and Holohan had opportunities to challenge evidence but did not appeal any evidentiary rulings. The acquittal of one co-defendant also showed the jury could distinguish culpability.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2011-06-22 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 08-4583

    Original Title

    United States v. Laurinda Holohan, 4th Cir. (2011)

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document summarizes a United States Court of Appeals case involving Laurinda Holohan's appeal of her conviction on one count of conspiracy to commit mail fraud and twelve counts of mail fraud. The court upheld the jury's guilty verdict and 76-month sentence. It found that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Holohan's motion to sever her trial from her co-defendants, and that sufficient evidence supported her conviction. Specifically, evidence of how the fraudulent scheme operated was relevant to all alleged participants, and Holohan had opportunities to challenge evidence but did not appeal any evidentiary rulings. The acquittal of one co-defendant also showed the jury could distinguish culpability.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    65 views10 pages

    Unpublished

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document summarizes a United States Court of Appeals case involving Laurinda Holohan's appeal of her conviction on one count of conspiracy to commit mail fraud and twelve counts of mail fraud. The court upheld the jury's guilty verdict and 76-month sentence. It found that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Holohan's motion to sever her trial from her co-defendants, and that sufficient evidence supported her conviction. Specifically, evidence of how the fraudulent scheme operated was relevant to all alleged participants, and Holohan had opportunities to challenge evidence but did not appeal any evidentiary rulings. The acquittal of one co-defendant also showed the jury could distinguish culpability.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    of 10

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 08-4583

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    LAURINDA HOLOHAN,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
    W. Earl Britt, Senior
    District Judge. (5:07-cr-00117-BR-4)

    Submitted:

    May 31, 2011

    Decided:

    June 22, 2011

    Before NIEMEYER, DAVIS, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Mary J. Darrow, LAW OFFICE OF MARY JUDE DARROW, Raleigh, North


    Carolina, for Appellant.
    George E. B. Holding, United States
    Attorney, Jason H. Cowley, Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant
    United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Laurinda Holohan appeals her conviction and seventysix month sentence on one count of conspiracy to commit mail
    fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. 371 (2006) and twelve counts
    of mail fraud and aiding and abetting in violation of 18 U.S.C.
    1341, 2 (2006).

    She argues that the district court erred in

    denying her motion to sever her trial from that of her codefendants

    and

    that

    conviction.

    We affirm.

    insufficient

    evidence

    supports

    her

    This case arises out of a Ponzi scheme spanning more


    than twenty states and involving millions of dollars of loss.
    The indictment naming Holohan also charged six co-defendants:
    Michael

    A.

    Lomas,

    Knight,

    Scott

    B.

    Michael

    L.

    Hollenbeck,

    Young,
    and

    Barry

    Arthur

    C.

    J.

    Maloney,

    Susan

    Anderson. *

    The

    government alleged that Lomas and Young were the principals of a


    company that would ultimately become known as Mobile Billboards
    of America (MBA).
    work

    in

    an

    Hollenbeck
    investors.

    Lomas and Young hired Holohan and Knight to

    administrative
    and

    Anderson

    capacity
    to

    serve

    for
    as

    MBA,

    and

    salesmen,

    they

    hired

    recruiting

    Maloney, MBAs corporate attorney, was alleged to

    In United States v. Lomas, 392 Fed.Appx. 122, 2010 WL


    3034086 (4th Cir. 2010), we affirmed the judgment of sentence
    (240 months) entered against Lomas based on his guilty plea and
    upheld a restitution award in excess of $45 million.

    have assisted in implementing the legal documents associated


    with the defendants scheme.
    the

    scheme

    pled

    guilty,

    While many of the participants in


    Holohan,

    Hollenbeck

    and

    Maloney

    proceeded to trial.
    Briefly, the governments theory of the case was that
    MBA

    used

    frames

    its

    salespeople

    for

    the

    to

    display

    recruit

    of

    investors

    advertisements

    installed on the sides of truck trailers.


    leased to MBA.
    return

    monthly

    billboard

    who
    that

    purchased
    would

    be

    The frames were then

    The investors were promised a certain fixed


    (a

    space

    lease

    on

    the

    payment)
    frames

    generated

    for

    by

    selling

    advertising

    use.

    the
    The

    investors were further promised that their investments would be


    guaranteed

    and

    insured,

    investments were sound.

    and

    they

    were

    assured

    that

    the

    Unbeknownst to the investors, MBA was

    unable to generate advertising revenue sufficient to cover the


    monthly lease payments, and was using investment capital to fund
    those payments.

    In addition, Lomas was embezzling significant

    sums for personal purchases.


    Prior to trial, the defendants moved to sever their
    trials,
    disparity

    claiming
    of

    prejudicial.

    that

    their

    admissible

    antagonistic

    evidence

    against

    The court denied the motions.

    defenses

    and

    the

    each

    would

    be

    At the nearly five-

    week jury trial, the government adduced evidence from victims of


    the

    alleged

    scheme,

    investigators,
    3

    regulators,

    attorneys

    and

    financial service providers who did business with MBA, and from
    members of the alleged conspiracy, including Lomas, who had pled
    guilty

    and

    were

    cooperating

    with

    the

    government.

    At

    the

    conclusion of the trial, Maloney was acquitted and Holohan and


    Hollenbeck were convicted of each count of the indictment that
    remained after the government moved to dismiss several of the
    substantive mail fraud charges.
    month

    sentence

    for

    her

    role

    Holohan received a seventy-six

    in

    the

    scheme,

    and

    this

    appeal

    followed.

    I.

    Motion to Sever

    Holohan first argues that the court erred in denying


    her motion to sever her trial from that of her co-defendants.
    Holohan specifically argues that under the well-known standards
    of Zafiro v. United States, 506 U.S. 534 (1993), severance was
    required because, as she claims to have projected in her pretrial motion, she suffered substantial prejudice in the joint
    trial with Hollenbeck and Maloney.
    motion

    to

    sever

    for

    abuse

    of

    We review the denial of a

    discretion.

    United

    States

    v.

    Mackins, 315 F.3d 399, 412 (4th Cir. 2003).


    There is a preference in the federal system for joint
    trials of defendants who are indicted together, and a district
    court should grant a severance only if there is a serious risk
    that a joint trial would compromise a specific right of one of
    4

    the

    defendants,

    or

    prevent

    the

    jury

    judgment about guilt or innocence.


    The

    presumption

    that

    defendants

    from

    making

    reliable

    Zafiro, 506 U.S. at 537-38.


    indicted

    together

    should

    tried together is especially strong in conspiracy cases.


    States v. Chorman, 910 F.2d 102, 114 (4th Cir. 1990).

    be

    United
    Mutually

    antagonistic defenses alone are insufficient to merit severance.


    United

    States

    v.

    Najjar,

    300

    F.3d

    466,

    474

    (4th Cir. 2002).

    Instead, there must be such a stark contrast presented by the


    defenses that the jury is presented with the proposition that to
    believe the core of one defense it must disbelieve the core of
    the other, or the conflict will lead to the jurys unjustified
    inference of both defendants guilt.

    Id.

    This standard is not

    satisfied here.
    Holohan argues that as a result of the denial of her
    motion she was denied a fair trial (and thus, she says, due
    process). This contention rests on her assertion that certain
    inflammatory victim testimony, including testimony describing
    how Hollenbeck, the salesman, targeted churchgoing retirees as
    victims of the fraudulent scheme, was irrelevant to her guilt or
    innocence and thus would not have been admitted against her had
    she been tried alone.

    This argument is without merit.

    Evidence of how the scheme was operated, including the


    manner of selecting potential victims, was clearly admissible
    against all of the alleged members of the overall scheme to
    5

    defraud.
    had

    Holohan fully enjoyed the assistance of counsel and

    every

    opportunity

    to

    object

    to

    assertedly

    irrelevant

    evidence and to cross-examine each of the witnesses called by


    the

    government

    victims

    of

    the

    or

    her

    co-defendants.

    scheme,

    for

    example,

    She

    interaction with her or knew her.

    was

    whether

    able

    ask

    had

    any

    they

    to

    In particular, counsel for

    Holohan was also able to cross-examine Lomas (who testified in


    favor of the government) and Maloney (who testified on his own
    behalf) and attempt to show that they were the culpable parties,
    not her.
    any

    Notably, Holohan does not assign as error on appeal

    distinct

    ruling

    on

    the

    admissibility

    of

    evidence;

    furthermore, while she complains generally about the absence of


    limiting instructions, she has not suggested that she actually
    sought any limiting instructions from the district court or that
    the court specifically denied any such requests.

    In sum, we

    discern no support in the record for the assertion that Holohan


    was denied a fair trial by virtue of the district courts denial
    of her motion to sever.
    Separately,

    Holohan

    claims

    that

    the

    jurys

    guilty

    verdict cannot be deemed reliable because of the enormous and


    inflammatory amount of evidence presented at this complex trial
    against Hollenbeck.
    the

    jury

    was

    Maloneys acquittal belies this claim, as

    obviously

    able

    to

    culpability of the defendants.

    distinguish

    the

    relative

    In addition, it is well-settled
    6

    that the mere fact that Holohans acquittal might have been more
    likely

    if

    she

    were

    tried

    warrant a severance.

    alone

    is

    simply

    not

    sufficient

    to

    See United States v. Strickland, 248 F.3d

    368, 384 (4th Cir. 2001).


    Accordingly,

    we

    reject

    the

    claim

    that

    the

    district

    court abused its discretion in denying the motion to sever.

    II.

    Sufficiency of the Evidence

    Holohan next argues that the evidence adduced at trial


    was insufficient to sustain her conviction.

    This court reviews

    challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence supporting a jury


    United States v. Kelly, 510 F.3d 433, 440

    verdict de novo.
    (4th Cir. 2007).

    A defendant challenging the sufficiency of

    the evidence faces a heavy burden.


    507

    F.3d

    233,

    245

    United States v. Foster,

    (4th Cir. 2007).

    This

    court

    reviews

    sufficiency of the evidence challenge by determining whether,


    viewing

    the

    evidence

    in

    the

    light

    most

    favorable

    to

    the

    government, any rational trier of fact could find the essential


    elements

    of

    the

    crime

    beyond

    reasonable

    doubt.

    States v. Collins, 412 F.3d 515, 519 (4th Cir. 2005).


    both

    direct

    and

    circumstantial

    evidence,

    and

    United
    We review

    accord

    the

    government all reasonable inferences from the facts shown to


    those sought to be established.
    F.3d 326, 333 (4th Cir. 2008).

    United States v. Harvey, 532


    In reviewing for sufficiency of

    the evidence, we do not review the credibility of the witnesses,


    and we assume that the jury resolved all contradictions in the
    testimony in favor of the government.

    Kelly, 510 F.3d at 440.

    This

    verdict

    court

    will

    uphold

    the

    jurys

    if

    substantial

    evidence supports it, and will reverse only in those rare cases
    of clear failure by the prosecution.

    Foster, 507 F.3d at 244-

    45.
    The elements of mail fraud are:

    (1) the existence of

    a scheme to defraud, and (2) the use of mails to perpetrate the


    scheme.

    United

    (4th Cir. 2001).

    States

    v.

    266

    Vinyard,

    F.3d

    320,

    326

    To establish the first element, the government

    had to prove that Holohan acted with the specific intent to


    defraud,

    which

    circumstances
    United

    States

    may

    and
    v.

    be

    need

    inferred
    not

    Godwin,

    be

    272

    from
    proven

    F.3d

    the
    by

    659,

    totality
    direct

    666

    of

    the

    evidence.

    (4th Cir. 2001)

    (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). (In addition,


    the government proceeded on an aiding and abetting theory.)

    To

    find [Holohan] guilty of conspiracy to commit mail fraud, the


    jury had to find an agreement [to commit mail fraud], willing
    participation by [Holohan], and an overt act in furtherance of
    the agreement. United States v. Edwards, 188 F.3d 230, 234
    (4th Cir. 1999) (citing United States v. Dozie, 27 F.3d 95, 97
    (4th Cir. 1994)).

    Holohan

    argues

    that

    the

    government

    did

    not

    adduce

    sufficient evidence that she had the specific intent to defraud,


    and

    accordingly,

    did

    not

    satisfy

    the

    elements

    substantive offenses or the conspiracy charge.

    of

    either

    the

    At bottom, her

    claim is that she lacked education and sophistication, and her


    role at NPC and MBA was purely administrative.

    She argues that

    she had no knowledge of Hollenbecks activities and was simply


    following orders from Lomas and Young.
    Holohans argument lacks merit.

    The evidence adduced

    at trial indicated that although Holohan worked in a largely


    administrative

    capacity,

    overall

    to

    scheme

    essential
    serious

    defraud

    character:
    financial

    she

    (1)

    willfully

    with
    she

    trouble

    participated

    significant

    knew

    because

    that

    the

    there

    in

    the

    knowledge

    of

    its

    business

    was

    was

    virtually

    in
    no

    advertising revenue; (2) she was clearly aware that Lomas was
    using

    investor

    money

    for

    his

    personal

    expenditures,

    and

    she

    herself received the benefit of a free company Jaguar automobile


    and, over the course of less than five years, a series of nonsalary bonuses exceeding two hundred thousand dollars; (3) she
    knew that investor money was being improperly used to make lease
    payments;
    misleading

    (4)

    she

    knew

    advertisements

    that

    MBA

    that

    was

    implied

    using
    they

    deceitful
    were

    and

    raising

    advertising revenue and that revenue would be used to make the


    lease payments, when those representations simply were not true;
    9

    (5) she knew that while MBA advertising materials claimed that
    investor funds would be kept in trust, inaccessible to MBA or
    its related entities, this was not the case.
    direct

    and

    conclude

    circumstantial

    that

    the

    jury

    evidence

    acted

    In light of the

    presented

    reasonably

    in

    at

    finding

    trial,
    beyond

    we
    a

    reasonable doubt that she was guilty and we do not disturb its
    verdict.
    Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district
    court.
    legal
    before

    We dispense with oral argument because the facts and


    contentions
    the

    court

    are

    adequately

    and

    argument

    presented

    would

    not

    in
    aid

    the
    the

    materials
    decisional

    process.
    AFFIRMED

    10

    You might also like